(20 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...I have recently received several questions more or less out of the blue about what I think about the “Jesus Seminar” and its views of Jesus. I looked and it appears I’ve only had one brief posting on this issue, so I thought I should say a few things, first by explaining what the question means.
The Seminar was made up of a group of about fifty New Testament scholars who, in the 1980s and 1990s, met twice a year to discuss the ancient Gospels (mainly the canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas) to determine which traditions about Jesus were likely to be authentic, and which, as a corollary, were likely to have been later creations of the early church as they told stories about Jesus. The members of the seminar would then vote on each tradition – after extensive, learned discussion — and publish the results of their votes.
The voting procedure proved to be controversial.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
With regard to the future punishment for evil-doers:
Quote in the post from Matthew 13:
“The Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom every cause of sin and all who do evil, and they will cast them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Also, there are the words of Jesus with regard to the poor goats in Matthew 25:
“And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life.”
And then there’s the fate of the rich man as opposed to that of Lazarus in Luke 16:
“The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.”
Could not these passages be interpreted as describing never-ending, conscious torment for evil-doers rather than just one-time, permanent destruction?
Yes, when taken in isolation, absolutely. But for interpretation, context is everything.
Professor,
The overall conclusion of Jesus “mission ” aside, do you think the historicity measurement of Jesus sayings would be useful to the academically ill prepared of us on the blog who cannot reach those conclusions ourselves?
Yup, that’s in part why I’ve described the criteria typically used by scholars establishing what actually happened. If you do a word search for “criteria” or “dissimilarity” you’ll find the posts.
Thank you for a very interesting post.
Can you point us to a book by a member of the Jesus Seminar (possibly John Dominic Crossan)
where the idea of the *non-apocalyptic* Jesus is defended? Thanks!
Yup, any of the books about Jesus by Crossan or Marcus Borg would do.
I think that Dr Ehrman and many others agree that the bible indicate what we usually call annihilationism.My question is that does the phrase there will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth might indicate the typical eternal torment that most Christians today believe?
It’s kinda like the weeping and gnashing of teeth of the criminal on the way to the gallows. They realize they’ve blown it and/or it’s all going to end soon very unpleasantly.
Interesting analogy Bart
Dr. Ehrman, along with the verses above there’s the fact that Jesus was saying the Jewish prophecy of the long awaited Messiah, world peace, powerful ruler, judgment, etc., was imminent. That’s as apocalyptic as it gets. That IS the Apocalypse. Unless I’m missing something.
How can someone think Jesus was NOT an apocalyptic preacher without being ignorant or deceptive? Am I missing something?
They certainly have arguments, and aren’t just makin’ stuff up. There view is that after Jesus’ death his followers became apocalyptically minded (expecting him to return soon) and so put apocalyptic sayings on his lips. I don’t buy that, but I don’t think they’re ignorant or deceptive.
Thanks for posting this extract – I have the book but it is a long time since I read it and I am unsure where I put the neuronal clusters in which I placed the memory of having done so. 🙁
A question: is it possible for someone, logically, to accept your view of Jesus’ expectation of the imminent establishment of the Kingdom of God as described in the early sources, *and* believe that Jesus is/was divine as Christians have generally defined that (i.e. a part, at least, of an all-knowing God)?
It’s not only possible, it happens all the time. It’s a common view among committed historical scholars who are also committed church Christians. But they ain’t conservative evangelicals! They tend to be more mainstream Protestant and Catholic. Most of my Christian scholarly friends are definitely in that camp.
I have really enjoyed reading Doctor Crossan’s books, so I always enjoy hearing your perspective on his work since it provides a good contrast between the conclusions of two scholars that I greatly admire.
I haven’t read the entire interview yet, but Dr. Crossan did address some of the comments you’ve made about the apocalyptic Jesus and saying that he doesn’t believe in this. I wasn’t sure if you’ve read the interview before, but it might have some interesting material to comment on in a future post. Here’s a link to the interview: https://full-tilt.blogspot.com/2006/11/john-dominic-crossan-interview_02.html?m=1
As always, I’ll be looking forward to reading your next post, Dr. Ehrman!
Thank you Dr Ehrman. I understand Dr Robert M Price is/was a member of the Jesus Seminar and I also understand that he is a mythicist (who thinks that Jesus never existed). Are his views typical of the the views of the Seminar, or is he a maverick? Presumably, if other members do accept that Jesus was an historical figure, then that must have led to some lively debate.
I didn’t know / think he was a member of the seminar. Are you sure you have the right Robert Price? There’s another one out there who fits the Seminar profile better!
Wikipedia have the mythicist Robert Price as a Jesus Seminar Fellow, but perhaps they’ve confused him with the other one you mentioned. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had.
Yup. It’s the other one. Not the mythicist!
Are you sure? Robert M Price, the mythicist, identifies himself as “one of the most avowedly skeptical and non-theological Fellows of the Jesus Seminar” in https://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_jesus_sem_hist_bel.htm
Whoa! OK, I had no idea!
In the day of yore when YouTube didn’t exist and I used AOL dial-up, I found Crossan’s books in my local library (That’s the place people went for info before Wikipedia). He mentioned the Jesus Seminar. I anxiously awaited results. A lifelong Catholic, I’d be vindicated. The results I read in a newspaper: Here are the 6 lines Jesus actually said (I think it was around 6). I was floored. Like Ralph Kramden I said “Hominah, hominah.” Ever since then I’ve been a very skeptical Christian. However, as mentioned in a recent post, I remain part of Jesus silent army of people who do good for others, forgive, etc. Some may call me a humanist; some may say it’s the holy spirit working through me (Or as our parish priest from India says the holy spigot.) So, I’m glad to see posts about the Jesus Seminar and that you didn’t concur with its findings. In the mean time, I will let the energy flow to me from the holy spigot. Amen. 😉
There are a lot more than 6, but far fewer than the ones he did not say!
Did the Seminar address whether John the Baptist was an apocalypticist? It would seem strange to me to think he was and yet his disciple Jesus was not? Although I suppose one could rationalize that Jesus was refining and correcting John’s teachings.
Yup, it’s the big question. Crossan maintains in the one very short few sentences in his book tht JB WAS an apocalypticist, but that Jesus changed his message away from an apocalyptic view, and that after Jesus’ death, his disciples reverted to the views of John instead of Jesus. That strikes me as implausible and possibly special pleading…. disabledupes{4e4b085af8a18ee8d685f6eed1007591}disabledupes
I literally was just looking at some of the work by the Jesus seminar. Then I was like, “hmm, I wonder what Bart Ehrman had to say about that…” Looking forward to these posts!
What did you mean by, “as we move further away from Jesus’ life in the 20s”?
20s???
Yes, if Jesus died in the Spring of 30 (who knows if he did! But it’s a standard view), then most of his ministry / teaching would have been inteh late 20s.
Thanks Dr.Ehrman,
Would you like to say any more in relation to why you would not ‘fit in’ with the Jesus Seminar ?
Was it their methodology ?
Their methodology, assumptions, general sense of how to do history, and conclusions.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I think your work on this topic is compelling. Given the Gospels were written later after Paul’s letters, it makes one wonder whether Paul agrees with your position and also regarded Jesus in that light, although he would not have used our modern classification.
Yes, there is a question emerging here. Since Paul also seemed to believe that the end was imminent (in his generation) as well, how do you think Paul reached his “apocalyptic” conclusions? What evidence do we have (I’ll settle for your opinions) of the following possibilities:
* Paul got this from his visions and personal experiences with Jesus
* The apocalyptic content later recorded in the Gospels was already circulating during Paul journeys
* Paul arrived at this the same way Jesus meaning he had access to the same influences post-conversion
Any possibilities I missed would be nice as well.
Thanks
Gerry
I think the fairly dominant scholarly view on this is that Paul was an apocalyptic Jesus from his youth. He does tell us he subscribed to Pharisaic views, and they too were apocalyptic.
Is Jesus apocalyptic in a physical or symbolic sense? I don’t believe these verses mean what many think they do.
I’m not sure what physical apocalyptic or symbolic apocalyptic would be. Are you asking did he really literally believe what he said? I assume so. The other Jews at the time who have these views appear deeply committed to them literally. (As do apocalyptic Christians still today).
Yeah, I meant literal as opposed to symbolic. Bad wording.
Maybe I just have a bias against the apocalyptic prophet theory because of having been taught from an early age in the church “blessed are the peacemakers” and “he who humbles himself will be exalted” and “the meek shall inherit the earth”—those kinds of things.
Without doing an exhaustive study of the synoptic gospels, I’m wondering how many of those types of sayings also fall into the category of the earliest tradition of the historical Jesus. Wouldn’t these concepts be a contradiction to the “sword-wielding” Jesus of the apocalypse?
Also, it sounds like the Son of Man, referred to in third person is someone other than Jesus himself.
I realize I’m as guilty as the fundamentalists about cherry picking whom I want Jesus to be. Mine is just more about “love thy neighbor “ rather than a lake of fire. And I’m fine with it, even if it’s not the historical Jesus.
But those things fit the apocalyptic Jesus precisely. Apocalypticism provides the context for _when_ will the peacemakers be blessed, _when_ will he who humbles himself be exalted, _when_ shall the meek inherit the earth.
In addition to a supernatural heaven right after death, traditional Christianity teaches that there will be a second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Is “everlasting life” generally thought to be the same kind of utopian existence for human beings as the kingdom of God/Heaven that the historical Jesus preached?
I’m not negating that the historical Jesus taught that the kingdom would come within his generation and be an earthly kingdom. But it does seem like the final end result for both Jesus and traditional Christianity is ultimately the same kind of paradise for human beings.
Most Christians who still confess the coming resurrection do not seem to think much about it; they almost entirely assume eternity will be spent in the spiritual realms of heaven, not in resurrected bodies here on earth.
It’s funny, I just started reading their book The Five Gospels last week! If you had to take a guess, what percent of early Christianity scholars (not including Evangelical / Fundamentalist scholars) agree with the Jesus Seminar that Jesus was *not* an apocalypticist? What percent agree with you that he *was* an apocalypticist?
Among historical scholars, I’m pretty sure the majority sees Jesus as an apocalypticist still.
“Many scholars later objected to (or rather, mocked) the process” … as did evangelicals, framing it as representative of scholarship. (I can’t remember _where_ I read evangelicals doing that, but it was in something I read somewhere. Lost to time.)
Yes, it’s easy to lump “others” into a single group to discount them…. Kind a like neo-atheists who trash fundamentalists and think they are showing the errors of, say, Anglican intellectuals.
disabledupes{b53bef7669919cf7738085dba5a36d23}disabledupes
Nitpick.
From above:
“material in, say, Mark or Q (Q being the hypothetical source used by Matthew and Luke for their sayings – often verbatim the same – not found in Mark); or even better Mark and Q”
But if Q is defined in this way, then there can be no common material in Mark AND Q, since Q by definition only contains material NOT in Mark.
But of course, as your examples show, Mark and Q contain material which is quite similar, with a similar message, but not quite the same.
Nope, not a nitpick, just a misunderstanding. I think. I”m referring to KINDS of material (apocalyptic sayigs of various kinds), not identical specific sayings.
Bart, have you read The Cult of Trump by Steven Hassan?
Nope, I’m afraid not.
Okay. I haven’t read it either. Would like to read the book one day!